The Need for a Universal RAW Format

With so many new cameras being released each year that allow capturing images in RAW format using different compression levels, bit-rates and other proprietary data, it is becoming increasingly difficult for post-processing software to keep up with all the changes and provide full support for RAW formats. Although camera manufacturers have been bundling their own image converters, such tools are often underdeveloped, buggy and lack the necessary features to be able to rely on them for post-processing images. Despite the fact that some post-processing software tools as Adobe Lightroom and Capture One provide frequent updates to support new cameras, it is getting practically impossible to provide full support for every new camera and RAW format features. It is time for camera manufacturers to come up with a single universal RAW format that can be easily supported by all post-processing software and we as consumers need to push camera manufacturers to adopt this format.

Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One Pro and FastRawViewer running on the same machine

I just came back from a two-week trip to Israel and for the past few days, I have been struggling with the several thousand RAW images from the Fujifilm GFX 50S that I used during the trip. First of all, my laptop struggled so much with post-processing images in Lightroom, that I gave up and decided to do everything on my high-end desktop. After arriving home, I started the image culling process using FastRawViewer and once I deleted a bunch of images, I started the image import process. The images were imported pretty quickly, but since I knew that I would most likely want to look at the image detail of some images, I thought it would be a good idea to generate 1:1 previews in Lightroom. I started the preview generation process before going to bed and thought that by the time I wake up the next morning, the previews would be ready. I was wrong – it has been two days now and Lightroom is still struggling with the process. Lightroom is eating up 15 GB of RAM and 20% of the CPU during the image preview generation process and it still has approximately 30% to go, which is another day! I have attempted to stop and restart the process, rebooted my machine and nothing seems to be helping – Lightroom is simply inefficient when working with the Fuji GFX 50S files, even on a high-end desktop machine. Frustrated with the outcome, I decided to give Capture One 10 Pro a try, only to discover that Capture One does not even support files from the GFX 50S. And when I went back and tried to import some of my photos from 2016, I discovered that Capture One 10 Pro does not support a number of RAW file formats, including pixel-shift RAW files from the Pentax K-1. The same with DxO Optics Pro, which has zero support for some RAW file formats such as Fuji’s X-Trans.

Considering that Lightroom, Capture One and DxO are the most popular post-processing tools on the market today, it is frustrating to see how poorly they support RAW images from some of the most popular cameras on the market. Having been frustrated with Lightroom’s poor handling of RAW images in the past, I have been looking for an alternative way to convert images, but none of the methods seem to offer a solid solution. And let’s not forget that most operating systems cannot read RAW files either, making it difficult to even see what is in an image folder without using a third party tool…

Converting RAW files to TIFF format is not an option, because TIFF files are flat, which means that the editing headroom is already pretty shallow. In addition, TIFF files take up too much space, making them impractical when dealing with thousands of images. Adobe’s DNG format might sound like a solution, but it is not fully supported by all post-processing software, it takes time to convert images and it is known to strip out some of the proprietary EXIF data that is embedded by the camera. I stopped converting RAW files to DNG format a while ago for these and other reasons, as explained in this article. In short, there is no good option today to deal with all the RAW formats. Given the fact that camera manufactures do not seem to give a damn about this issue, we have a pretty big problem with post-processing software developers digging into RAW files, reverse-engineering some of the proprietary data and extracting what they need. As a result, we have partial support for RAW files and varying degrees of post-processing headroom in different software tools.

Since RAW files are only getting more complex with so many options (lossy-compressed, lossless-compressed, uncompressed, 12, 14 and 16 bit data, pixel-shift and other proprietary data), I do not see how it will be possible to continue this RAW format insanity. It is time for camera manufacturers to come up with a single file standard that will provide all the necessary support for RAW files from every camera. For a while, many of us thought that Adobe’s DNG format would become such a standard, but after so many years, it has clearly failed to accomplish this task – only a select few camera manufacturers provide an option in their cameras to save RAW images in DNG format today.

I know that the photography community does not care if DNG or some other format becomes the standard – as long as there is one universal format that works in every camera and post-processing tool, we will be happy! If camera manufacturers do not want to standardize on Adobe’s DNG for whatever reason, they should either come up with a universal format and agree on its use, or engage the open source community to create a universal format. No matter what route we go, it should be a fully open format that is clearly defined, similar to some of the ISO standards we deal with today. This way, it will be easy for all operating systems, post-processing tools and cameras to provide full support for the new universal RAW format.

Personally, I am sick and tired of the constant headaches we as end users have to deal with when working with RAW images. I should not have to change my post-processing tool of choice just because some other tool does a better job at handling RAW files (Fuji X-Trans anyone?). I should not have to wait for my post-processing software to be updated to support my newly purchased camera. I should not have to buy and install multiple post-processing software packages on my computer to handle different cameras or file formats. The world is moving towards simplicity and there is a reason why smartphones and easy to use apps are taking over. If camera manufacturers do not come up with simpler ways to use and store data from their cameras, their sales will only continue to suffer…

What do you think? Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comments section below!

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter to receive biweekly emails notifying you of the latest articles posted on the website. Email Address First Name

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as detailed in the Privacy Policy.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram, 500px and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Tor Ivan Boine

May 9, 2017 at 1:45 pm

“Given the fact that camera manufactures do not seem to give a damn about this issue” Nailed it!

I totally agree! Even though I’m a beginner in the RAW universe, I am already frustrated by not being able to get the most out of my Nikon high ISO images in Lightroom and haven’t been able to figure out what other converter would do better and into which file format that should be saved so I can process in either LR or PS. I tried using Nikon’s NX-D, saved to tiff & ended up with a messy result when loaded into LR.

Charlotte, that’s the frustration many photographers go through. So many tools out there and they all have challenges with RAW images. If we had a universal RAW format, we would not be dealing with all the headaches we deal with today.

Totally agree! I had to struggle with only 6 images from GFX 50S taken during a short try with the camera. Lightroom seemed to recognize the camera and the lens but the support was clearly worse than my old D800.

Careful what you ask for. Mobile standards are designed for simplicity and typically don’t support many advanced features.

From a camera manufacturer’s perspective, they incur no cost in regards to the support of their RAW formats in editing tools. Those non-recurring and recurring costs are shouldered by Adobe et al. What is their incentive? What financial pressure that you bring to bare? The executive that green lights the creation of an industry standard gains nothing financially from such an act. As some on the deals with them on a regular basis, the ‘what’s in it for my’ view is often their first consideration. Though expressed in Execuspeak™

Creating a common industry standard requires the creation of the processes that will be used to define the common specification. First, a standards body that will own and administer the specification needs to be created or selected from existing standards bodies. E.g. ANSI, DIN, ISO or other industry specific organization. Then comes creation of the committee, selection of officers, e.g. chair, secretary, etc, definition of the charter, sub-committees, working groups, etc.

These foundational steps can take at least one or more years, since the people that do the work are not dedicated to the task given they have day jobs and may only meet once a week or month. All told, creating a common industry RAW data format specification could take from 3-5 year. Or never if the major parties can’t come to an agreement!

With a standard comes the issue of implementation. Will only new camera models support this new standard? Is there an expectation that someone will create conversion software for transforms the older RAW formats into the new standard? If so then who will pay for their creation and maintenance?

Until someone can make a viable business case that yields benefits, read hard cash, then manufacturers have no incentive to change the status quo since Adobe et al are footing the bill.

That’s how …BACNET…communication protocol for building automation and control network was created…it is also ASHRAE …AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERS…ISO…ANSI Standard Protocol! And YES it took years o develop it.

Great idea, but my guess is that this will never happen. If Nikon or Canon or Sony images were saved to a univerasl, open source raw format, wouldn’t that allow someone to reveal what the camera manufacturers are or are not doing to the “raw” images? My understanding is that all of these companies actually process their raw images to a small degree, even though they shouldn’t. They wouldn’t want this processing revealed.

Excellent points, Nasim. I’m really surprised that digital photography has come so far in such a short period, yet, to date, no one seems to have taken up the challenge of developing a uniform RAW standard. That it is needed and should be done seems perfectly obvious, at least to most photographers, I should think. I’m with you in hoping that one of the manufacturers will elect to pick up the challenge and run with it. First one there gets to call most of the shots and thereby lead the way. But surely a consensus could be reached among the respective manufacturers fairly quickly. Yes, I think a RAW standard would benefit the entire industry from camera makers to end users everywhere. Thanks.

Your words are gospel. I wonder in 10 years what the situation will be. If software will drop old cameras. Also Adobe reverse engineering is not as good as a starting point t compared to jpg previews.

I think if camera companies use proprietary metadata in their raw files they do not show interest in an open raw file format.

Dng conversion may be a lesser evil than deprecation of old raw file formats. But then you’ll be locked out of the manifacturer’s software. But I feel these days camera makers are not interested anymore in pushing their own software. Open raw format should be the way to go.

You are preaching to the choir. In the USA we can not even get the elected politicians to work together for ALL the people they represent so how in the devil would we ever get Nikon, Canon, Fugi, Sony, etc. to come together and agree on a standard. In fact none of them (in my opinion) provide an adequate processing software to process the files of their respective cameras. It almost make one think about going back to film.

I totally agree, considering how fast new cameras and lens are coming out and the software manufactures seeming always behind with all the new gear it would be a benefit to the consumer as well as the equipment and software manufactures. Not sure if you could get all interested parties in the same room but if you were able to please lock the door until they came out with a single format.

What’s the benefit to the manufacturer? You make several good and important points, from the users perspective. But that’s not where the decision lies. Come up with a benefit for the manufacturers and you might solve the problem.

So you are complaining because the world does not accommodate you? You cannot expect one tool to solve all your problems, there are other programmes that might be better than Lightroom, use them instead. Just my opinion…

I do not want the world to accommodate me. I want a tool that works well with all the file formats. I don’t just use Lightroom – I also use Capture One and DxO and all three have big problems with RAW file formats.

Hi, Nasim, Nice article and I feel your pain. Nevertheless, I do not think that the situation is going to improve anytime soon. As you have already said, the photography market is already saturated. It is saturated with cameras, and it is saturated with post-processing software. To keep themselves alive, they need to offer something of their own brand that is better than the other brands. To support my opinion, please take a look at the office and word processing software. MS Word is clearly inadequate for anything larger than 10 pages. Professional writers do not use MS Word. There are many other word editors but they are not on the same page of the supporting formats. This is another tower of Babel. I may sound pessimistic but the RAW format compatibility issue is only going to get worse. Sorry. Val

Because their converters suck terribly and they had to deal with customers walking away from their exotic formats. Not to forget Leica. DNG became for some reason the last hope for manufacturers who only have limited knowledge and manpower to make work their genuine, proprietary stuff.

But I fully understand the camera manufacturers not to use DNG and become slaves of an already arrogant and super-big monopolist, although I’m also longing for a universal RAW format. Bringing all of Adobe’s bugs into that could cost customer sympathies, when a new model comes out and it’s DNG is not working.

When possible, and desirable, manufacturers do agree on certain standards. ISO standards are examples, video and audio formats are also a good example. The problem with RAW is the sensor (and processing) technology is rapidly changing, and new features are constantly added and thus cannot be easily coordinated between manufacturers. It is virtually impossible to anticipate where the change is heading so the “standard” is made to accommodate these changes with backward compatibility. It is a lost case I’m afraid.

Rashad, I disagree. This is very doable and it does not have anything to do with sensor technology. Data can be saved in any format – it is up to manufacturers to decide what format to choose. Look at Pentax and Sigma, who are already doing it.

I hope you’re right, Nasim. But what if a totally new system comes along. Will they really be able to provide compatibility with hundreds of cameras going back 20 years and more? Or am I misunderstanding the way these systems work?

Mike, there are thousands of cameras that are fully supported by most post-processing software today. Once the code is there, it will usually not be removed by the software manufacturer, since backwards compatibility is important. In fact, many new software tools out there go back to many file formats of cameras that you cannot even find on the market today – they want to be compatible with as many cameras as possible. Even in 20 years you should be able to post-process images from your D300…

“Mike, there are thousands of cameras that are fully supported by most post-processing software today. Once the code is there, it will usually not be removed by the software manufacturer, since backwards compatibility is important.”

Backwards compatibility may important to you, but maintaining support for older cameras in the software’s code base is not free and can add up to a significant amount of technical debt as the associated higher maintenance costs to a Program’s budget.

There is an ongoing cost to support legacy devices since new releases must be regression tested against these devices.

Maintenance of technical debt does not generate any revenue and is typically underfunded in favor of focusing available resources on introducing new features.

Technical debt is one of the first things an IT leader looks at to see if there any value proposition for supporting older devices. If there is one then support for older devices (camera) will likely be dropped.

The DNG is an open, documented format that is standardised by ISO. It is actually a TIFF/EP format extension (many proprietary raw formats are as well, just in an undocumented manner).

But I see at least two problems: 1 – many manufacturers think proprietary formats and maker notes are the way to go to value their ecosystem; 2 – it is difficult for a published standard to be future proof or evolve quickly enough to cope with new developments (such as X-Trans CFA).

Fiatlux, Adobe has stated a number of times about the DNG format being an open format. However, I think the biggest issue with manufacturers is the use of Adobe’s product. Perhaps they think that Adobe might license the format one day, who knows. If we started out with an open source format that has all the necessary features and can support compression and ability to store all the necessary proprietary data (rather than just ignoring it as in the case of DNG), perhaps manufacturers would support it on their cameras. It will be a hard push, but not impossible in my opinion!

I agree with your two points, but again, it is not an impossible task. If the code is open source, it will evolve overtime with contributions from the community, as well as the manufacturers.

It is an open standard in that it is fully documented and license free. Allowing for private tags is not ideal but gives some flexibility to manufacturers and does not break compatibility since you can skip them.

Industry standards are not bad per se. Most standards in use today are based on commercial implementations, and standardisation working groups are largely attended by industry representatives. I don’t see what an open source standard (whatever that means) would add.

It is indeed not (yet) standardised by ISO but was proposed for inclusion in TIFF/EP. The ISO standardisation of TIFF seems to have stalled, I don’t know whether it has anything to do with DNG.

You are wrong again. No, it is not fully documented. See green split tag for example: “BayerGreenSplit … This tag specifies, in arbitrary units, how closely the values of the green pixels in the blue/green rows track the values of the green pixels in the red/green rows.” Thus, we do not know how to interpret the value in the tag.”

Sensor technology which includes the raw format is the manufacturers best competitive tool to sell their technology. Consumers cannot expect development of these technologies if the proprietary format is removed from the equation .A common raw format would severely hinder the development of new and better sensors and technology. We cannot have it both ways!

Richard, I fully disagree. A RAW format is just a file format. You can save all the data in a file format like DNG without any issues. Take a look at Pentax and Sigma cameras that have this capability. A common RAW format will not hinder the development of new and better sensors – sensors have nothing to do with file formats.

DNG is in any case the most disk-space using or wasting format, depending on how you welcome it. As there are people out there who can “see a difference” between losless compressed and uncompressed 14 bit RAW (DNG supports up to 32 bit…), there will also be people who see differences between proprietary and DNG RAW files. Which I think – but will not be able to prove – is mostly based on poor skills with their RAW converters as these have also preferences and some “hidden buttons” which are less well documented.

Raw data formats are pretty stable at the moment. During last 1.5 years only Fuji and Samsung modified their raw packing routines, and both offer SDK to read the raw data. Though we use our own decoders for these formats, SDKs are usable (just a tad slow).

Third-party converters, and especially the newer ones, are often using open source raw decoders, thus decoding of the older formats is automatically present.

When you think of DNG as a universal format, re-read this from DNG Specs: “BayerGreenSplit only applies to CFA images using a Bayer pattern filter array. This tag specifies, in arbitrary units, how closely the values of the green pixels in the blue/green rows track the values of the green pixels in the red/green rows.” Thus, we do not know how to interpret the value in the tag.

Generations of sensors changed in Canon, Nikon, SONY, etc cameras with raw data format staying essentially the same. The changes are mostly about metadata, not the raw data format per se.

Camera manufacturers can address the problem of supporting new cameras in third-party raw converters by simply publishing the specifications of metadata and colour filter arrays. That way we would be able to concentrate on better and faster raw conversions instead of wasting time hacking the metadata.

From a photographer’s perspective, I own the content of my image files, not the camera manufacturer. Thus, I should be able to read and understand all the metadata necessary to interpret the file content, and all the raw data.

I realize you probably don’t want to hear this, but the universal format you want is actually TIFF. Adobe DNG? Based off of tiff, canon raw CR2? Based off of tiff. If sure if I looked, most other raw formats would be some variation of tiff.

I’m not sure why you think tiff files are too flat. What do you mean by that? I routinely save stuff in tiff all the time with no issues, including multi layered photoshop files and it preserves everything including the layers just fine. Do tiffs support bayer data? Yep. You can even get that with Dcraw by telling it to dump the bayer data into a tiff tile with no interpolation, then use exiftools to copy all the metadata over to the tiff file from the raw file. The result? A raw tiff file.

The biggest issue isn’t so much the file format itself (again, mostly tiff based if not outright tiff with a different extension), but mostly the fact that the various manufacturers put the magic sauce on how to correctly process the file contents into the makernotes field in a proprietary format instead of using standardized tiff fields for most of that stuff.

TIFF is not a format, it is a container. That is why you can have TIFF-based CR2, NEF, DNG, etc. TIFF does not guarantee one does not need an inside knowledge to interpret what is inside the container :)

True, but tiff allows describing what it contains so that you can handle whatever it contains. That’s kind of the whole point of the meta data in a tiff file. The biggest issue isn’t so much the file format (or how the raw data is represented in said format), it’s that the manufacturers don’t use the existing available metadata facilities and instead pack a bunch of that info into proprietary structures under what would be the makernotes field if it where an official tiff file. Even that isn’t so bad except that they don’t document it, and it’s kind of important to know what that stuff is because it is germaine to how to handle to raw samples. That’s the real problem.

For example, on Canon cr2 files, canon doesn’t linearly pack the sample data into the 14 bits that they specify, instead they pack it into a sub range of that (I know this because I’ve written code to de-mosaic cr2 files) and then don’t use the tiff tag that specifies the transform to get the samples back out to linear form, leaving a third party (me, or adobe, or the authors of the various raw processors) to go and figure it out.

The other source of frustration for the author of this blog post was that he loaded giant files into Lightroom, told it to do one of its most expensive operations, and expected the same performance level as he previously got with images that where probably a quarter of the data size. The GFX 50 uses a standard Bayer CFA, there’s nothing special there except the resolution.

That’s correct. The main reason of the problem is not the format being non-standard, but the format being non-documented. Speaking about Capture One, until recently their support to DNG was limited. And even now if you try to open a DNG file from an non-P1 MF camera in Capture One, it will refuse to do so. It is not all about a format.

Whether the camera manufacturers would ever come together with a common RAW format is anyone’s guess. And, even if they did that would not necessarily be any guarantee that all software programs would automatically support all cameras/lenses. There could be some other issues operating behind the scenes that could still preclude universal support for all cameras and lenses in all software programs. For example, for all we know there could be a ‘pay to play’ relationship between the software companies and the camera/lens manufacturers. If something like this was actually happening it could mean that if a particular camera/lens manufacturer didn’t contribute towards the testing and related software development costs for modules to cover their products, those products would not be included in updates by the software company. Or, perhaps those products would only covered in a more generic way. I have no evidence suggesting that this is actually happening in the photography business…I’m just tabling a thought that may help explain why the support for some gear is missing with some software. Manufacturers having to pay for independent, third party product testing is not a completely foreign concept in some industries.

I agree. And if it would speed up Lightroom, yahoo! I do think it would be ok to have 3 or 4 standards though to allow for some differences ( but I’m no expert so if one standard could be a robust solution I’m all in )!

To get full X-Trans compressed support form Capture One I needed to wait longer than a year. Apple Aperture: Months after new cameras were out and now the app is dead – yes, it’s still working, but how long can I access my old edits?

Nasim, going to Israel and bringing a fancy new camera with a new, exotic RAW format is actually asking for troubles very loudly. Camera manufacturers will not find any need to change their thinking, if we run after each “new! 20 more features! 5% less noise” crap they announce – and it remains crap as long as I cannot use it’s functions fully and have to wait for a decent RAW-converter which I’m used to, which is part of my workflow for some reasons. Would you accept a car with a missing rear gear or only two seats instead of 5 in? The rest will come in time…

Big manufacturers, that is. The smaller ones simply use DNG-RAW because their own converters are reason not to buy the camera.

Doing a 2 row panorama with 100 MB RAW files is asking for the next troubles and should at least make you re-define the idea of having a “high-end machine”. Running on Windows, right? “most OS cannot display RAW files” – Basically it is Windows which can’t. Apple OS just cannot display RAW files newer than, say, 4 months, but the older and bigger rest is a piece of cake. And I’m sure, for Linux you can get extensions.

As I also like to add: Coming back with “thousands of files”, 100 MB each, from a two week trip… If I know it will be *pita* to process my Sigma RAW files (only the last cameras after the last firmware update support DNGs, and even a Sigma rep is seeing some bigger hardware and spec issues), I just be more careful and try to nail exposure, focus and composition before instead of hammering out a couple of bracketing series. Less can be more.

Amidst all the technical discussion we are missing the fact that Nasim has shared one of the nicer images I’ve seen on the site lately. The depth of the young woman’s expression and feeling of a moment passing are both captured very effectively. Nice work Nasim!

I have two strikes against me. I shoot almost everything in RAW on my Nikon D750 and D7200 and I really don’t want to pay to rent Adobe Photoshop on the web, so am stuck with Photoshop 6, which I do love. But while PS6 will read and recognize my RAW files from those two cameras, Adobe is not updating PS6 to take any newer RAW formats now. So I will keep on using those two bodies, and not buy new ones from Nikon. From my perspective it is a truly absurd situation – Nikon loses an “upgrader”, and Adobe loses someone who purchased new versions of Photoshop for years. Strange world these companies live in.

Check out ON1 Photo RAW 2017 as a low cost alternative to PS/LR. Low cost meaning $99 at the present time and no subscription fees. It might have all you need for post-processing different raw file formats as stand-alone. Camera support can be found under their support page at www.on1.com/

Since manufacturers are including more and more Raw processing options in the bodies, implying that they prefer you to adjust things there, I wonder if an enhanced (10 bit?) JPEG format might be a solution for consistent final adjustments?

The flip side of the post-processing question is that of archival storage. I got curious a few years ago around the time some of the large institutional collections (Smithsonian, universities, etc.) had recently turned their attention to the next fifty years or so and were settling on lossless TIFF.

It’s not a trivial thing that Android and Apple iOS have both settled on IN CAMERA conversion to DNG. With Moore’s Law improving horsepower all levels of hardware (why not 8gb of RAM and a serious quad-core processor in a DSLR?) I’m pretty sure the solution is going to be along the lines of in camera conversion from any proprietary RAW the manufacturer wants to output in a standard lossless format, that any post-processing software will immediately recognize without the current time lag and parade of updates to capture every new iterations of hardware.

It depends on how you choose to convert. If you apply lossy compression, then yes, you will lose quality. If you do not apply any compression, then it should be a straight conversion. There are pros and cons to converting RAW files to DNG format. Take a look at the link in the above article to see why I choose not to do it anymore.

First off, I’m not following the basic argument here. You can convert, as you upload a RAW or NEF file, directly to DNG. Is this a problem for you? The cold truth is that camera manufacturers have absolutely nothing to gain by making a universal format for their files with other manufacturers (camera and software). MOST sales that Canon and Nikon garner are not from those using RAW files, but JPG shooters anyways. The bulk of Canon’s DSLR sales are Rebels and lower-level cameras; not high-end stuff where RAW shooters start to enter the picture (see any CIPA data). As extensive as Canon and Nikon’s market research is, I’m guessing they came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no fiscal benefit to doing this and neither end is probably losing customers. And that’s just the cold truth.

The other thing regarding renting a subscription to Photoshop CC: You get Photoshop, Camera RAW, and LR for $10/month. To buy all of that? A quick search showed PS and Camera RAW selling for cheapest $746 plus another $150 or so for LR. That’s 74.6 months of subscription services, only the subscription service lets you upgrade for free. I’m happy to subscribe.

So while I would like to see a universal format myself too, it’s not likely going to happen, or at least, not anytime soon.

What your asking is basically that camera manufacturers go out of their way to help Adobe profit – free of charge and make better and more accurate raw image processors – I promise that IF Adobe, Apple, silicon valley, etc. actually paid fair value for access to Japanese camera makers algorithms the landscape would be much different. DXO and Capture One Pro are the only ones that I know of who painstakingly test, re-test and continue to test their products with whatever comes down the line, short of helping the direct competition ( that’s why it takes time for newer lenses and camera to be added to their compatibility list ). A good example of this is how Lightroom supports the ColorChecker for custom calibration while Capture One Pro doesn’t… Capture One actually test and profile camera/lens combinations to a much higher standard then what is possible with the very limited patches of the ColorChecker. DNG is NOT the answer, all Adobe has done is offer up a ‘free’ to use proprietary raw container that is very limited compared to what is possible in the raw format, all for the benefit of Adobe.

Here is another reason that DNG is not the answer. Up until recently, I routinely imported my RAW files into lightroom using the DNG format and deleted the raw files in order to save on disk space and minimize the number of duplicate imiges on my hard drive. I was recently surprized to learn that many reputable photo competitions require you to send them the out of the camera, RAW file, in the event that you win the competition. As a result, I do not routinely convert my RAW files to the DNG format and support Nasim’s view that there needs to be a universal RAW format for all camera manufactures.

I don’t know if this helps anybody. I do my basic RAW processing using Nikon’s Capture NX-D RAW processing program. It is very competent for exposure, white balance, and quite a few other processes. It can do a lot more than I know how to do on it. I then convert with it, piece of cake. But I find it much more effective to do the rest of my processing on the jpeg’s. I find that things like adjusting brightness etc., plus cloning, cropping etc. work better on the jpeg. I don’t use Lightroom. I have occasionally thought about it, but all the things you people go through with the catalog, importing, and such, has convinced me never to buy it. I long ago created my own filing system that works great for me, which lets me avoid needing catalogs or import functions or anything else. I then continue to process my jpegs on a very competent program that I’ve used for years, that does just about everything that Lightroom does, but it seems to me more easily. There are a number of good programs out there to try. As for the RAW issues discussed here, maybe it would be better to get off the camera technology merry-go-round for a while, which seems to be spinning faster and faster making it harder and harder to keep up,until the mirrorless fad either fades away or the companies all settle down and the good stuff remains and the crap falls away. Then these issues may just disappear.

You wrote: “… I long ago created my own filing system that works great for me, which lets me avoid needing catalogs or import functions or anything else. I then continue to process my jpegs on a very competent program that I’ve used for years, that does just about everything that Lightroom does, but it seems to me more easily. …”

Please tell us more. I would like to know what works for you, because I am needing to adopt a better workflow. I just recently began to shoot in RAW. Thanks.

Just thinking about your problem more, how does LR or any editing program actually display a 1:1 preview when the data is 50mp? Since the average computer screen is somewhere between 1mp and 5mp resolution, and the preview screen is smaller than that, say on average 2mp, would LR have to remove (and possibly even interpolate) 48mp of data on each frame to display the preview?

Never really understood how that worked, but I certainly notice a slow-down when using the D810 versus my D500, even with JPEG.

1:1 Previews are only used in the Library module when you want to zoom into the image at 100%. Previews don’t work in the Develop module. When previews are generated, there are several types – the resized image for your screen is separate than the 1:1 preview. See my article on optimizing Lightroom performance for more details.

I guess LR now needs an option to build other ratio previews, given that the progress to high MP cameras means a 1:1 preview is an extreme close-up view. Does the Standard preview give a fixed percentage of the original file, or a fixed total MP? If the former, the Standard preview might be sufficiently zoomed in for 50mp files.

Like most others, I agree on the need for a common format. When I shot Nikon, I quickly dropped their software to use Lightroom. Unfortunately I was convinced that DNG was going to be the agreed on format, and changed everything into DNG for a few years. Now I shoot Olympus, and didn’t even try using their software. Lightroom may or not may be the best converter, but it works ok for me and is good for archiving and searching. Unfortunately I’m still stuck with xmp files, and of course everything stops working if I don’t pay Adobe forever, perhaps even past death, if anyone else wants to use my files. That may be one reason there is not a common format; Adobe and the camera companies each want us to be tied to them, and them alone.

One can’t come up with a common format because, for example, the number of tags used 10 years ago is about 3x less than these days; compression schemes are advancing, pixel-shift and other techniques are emerging, and multi-exposure raw is in the works.

Even DNG is now at it’s version 1.4, not to count CinemaDNG.

As I said already, common format is not a solution. Openly documented formats is what we need.

16-bit raw file formats do exist. It has been argued many times that 16-bits per channel is nothing other than marketing hype. Perhaps it is, however, in the case of a camera raw file being produced from an averaged multiple-exposure sequence of 16 or more shots, then 16-bits per channel are required in order to properly convey the full dynamic range of the composite capture in cameras which have state-of-the-art sensors.

Is the issue really yet another proprietary raw file format or rather the computer processing requirements needed to handle a 125MB raw file ? Also how do you explain a very small software company such as PictureCode being able to update its product (Photo Ninja) in a very timely fashion… one of the first to support the GFX files. I would venture to guess that the internal business processes at Adobe and Phase One are more likely the reasons why these folks are never front and center… the underlying math needed to handle the sensor data of a Bayer sensor is already known.

At least it’s comforting to know I’m not the only photographer out there who’s frustrated with the current RAW model’s rough edges.

The more common message on the net doesn’t embrace much uncertainty: “If you can’t make magic 100% of the time with [Insert Camera + RAW converter combination here], it’s because you’re too stupid to be helped.”

From where I stand, however, the RAW model feels like something most of the camera manufacturers have simply left underdeveloped and unfinished. An afterthought, really. Sure, Phase One seems to have closed the circle–bundling their high-zoot medium-format digital backs with their own excellent Capture One application as the According-to-Hoyle converter–but when you throw in the camera body and a lens or two and a computer capable of running the files, you’re approaching a six-figure investment.

It leads me to the nagging, uneasy feeling that CaNikon et al. really just expect us all to be shooting JPEG. At which point everything comes together–the manufacturer’s color and tone models, processing speed, sharing, universal file compatibility–so long as you’re OK with the same editing latitude an iPhone shooter enjoys.

Really, that makes sense though. The bulk of Canon and Nikon’s customer base are JPEG shooters. Most of Canon’s camera sales, for instance, are Rebels. Like, by a lot. I’m not disagreeing with you, but from a business standpoint, they have very little to gain by making their own Adobe-like software and everything to gain by just providing the minimal RAW software when you purchase your camera.

What is the real proportion (or close) of all camera users that exclusively or mostly utilize RAW (or similar format)?

Then — what is that proportion in different camera brands?

I think the proportions and preferences would be reflected in a correlated manner with volume (of sales) in case of the different camera brands and 3rd party softwares supporting and updating their RAW translators etc…?

It is all further complicated by algorithms underlying different formats and how transparently individual camera companies share those. Shades of PC vs Apple philosophies…?

Always save a JPG as second file along the raw file while shooting. While browsing them select and dispose all the photos you either want to keep or not. So you would not need processing power to convert hundreds of raw files to jpgs and you can compare the output of your raw converter with the original jpg of the camera (e.g. colour, grain).

As for the universal raw format there is one major problem. The raw format is called raw because it contains sensor information of the camera with minimal processing. As there are different types of sensors and the development of some techniques is far from being finished it makes it almost impossible to define such an universal format. A least there could be a base format which could be extended in the future.

Additional information on the subtopic above: The extracted JPEG-file is missing the EXIF-data. These have to be applied separately. If I compare the size of both JPEGs (camera and extracted) the extracted image of the D800E is 1.1MB and the generated image is 1.4MB. (The generated image is of type ‘basic’ and ‘size priority’.) The D4 with ‘basic’ and ‘quality priority’ delivers: out of cam JPEG: 1.7MB, extracted of raw: 0.6MB. Since the resolution remains the same and the quality of the extracted JPEG is still very good they can be used for the quality control. (So if I review with my cam’s LCD I see the embedded JPG and not a on the fly converted raw file. So reviewing the JPEGs gives the better quality the reviewing the RAWs because they are less compressed?)

I started to look at changing to Olympus for a lighter system for us older folk. However, Lightroom 5 does not support the raw files for the new OM E1ii…or the lens profiles. I decided not to buy another camera because of the lack of support by Lightroom 5 and/or the learning curve associated with a new software system as an alternative to Adobe.

In other words Olympus lost a sale because the post processing of raw files is a nightmare. Maybe pressure should be put on camera manufacturers to pick a format to automatically convert their raw files too?

I guess the bottom line is that one considers a photography eco system, he or she needs consider not only the camera and the lens(es) but the software that would be used for RAW conversion. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I feel that my powers to change Nikon’s/Canon’s or anybody else support for RAW format and/or editing software is limited. Again, I personally got used to think of the “Camera + lens + software” combination rather than of “Camera + lens.” Val

That is true. I calibrated darktable’s base curve for each of my cameras against Nikon’s generated JPEG. The results please me very much (more than the included base curves). It goes that far that the output is almost not depending on what camera’s profile I use. This speaks for Nikon as they take care a lot to keep their characteristics along the cameras. But still you are right. The output of Nikons JPEG-engine is a grain finer. Since I quite often rely on the iso invariancy of the Nikon cameras there is no way around editing RAW-files anyway. There is also no way around if you want to give your photos e.g. the paper look (as if they were printed). But then you are way off to the camera JPEG-output anyway and the raw converter is turning into your personal photo lab (somehow). Like in the earlier days: It was the film (sensor) and the paper (raw converter and paper) which gave the characteristics to the photo most. So “camera + lens + software” is just like it has been ever since, isn’t it?

You are right, it is like in the old film days. To me the RAW converter is like a film developer. In the film days I was in search for a magic B&W film developer recipe and I eventually found one. Nowadays, Capture One Pro is the magic film developer for me (I use Olympus OMD-EM 1).

Darktable produces pretty close results for me too. If I go Linux, I will use Darktable (I am using Mac at the moment).

If you take the film era analogy further: considering the camera as a camera (!), a raw converter as a developing tank, and the LR/PS etc process as the enlarger; you will remember that medium format film required different spools and tanks, different film holders and enlarger lenses; not to mention the fact that when using medium format film, your final output was usually a larger sized (expensive) paper if not drum-scanned for offset litho output. The process required more dedication, time and expense compared to 35mm film, which itself wasn’t cheap.

Seems to me that if you’re shooting digital MF you should be aiming for MF output quality, which probably means a dedicated MF raw converter and specialist post processing software. LR etc are consumer level products, and $6,000+ camera bodies are not designed for consumer level output. There surely must be professional software used by magazine printers etc. that would be able to handle large RAWs effortlessly.

There are upwards of 10 main stream camera manufacturers; each have optimised their cameras for their market and the format of RAW files is the one they consider works best for them. As a result we have a market of both dedicated sensor type and broad use RAW conversion software – PHOCUS, NDX are both sensor optimised and work with only one type of RAW files; whereas the rest work with all. It would surprise me if Capture One was not optimised to work better with Phase One Cameras/backs than any other RAw converters

Try telling Mamiya Leaf, Phase One or Hasselblad that they should stop providing digital backs that produce RAW files that work with both dedicated software and broad RAW converters. Why should they, let alone any other manufacter?

Our company is based in Portugal, Lisbon and we are expert in XRAY photo digitalization. Our main work is photograph clinical X-ray archive and for that we develop a new concept, that is photograph the X Ray in a special box with illuminated by led lamps, using a Canon with Lents Sigma 500mm f14. For capture the X Ray we use the program;www.phaseone.com/en/Pr…ights.aspx

Our question is, how can we certificate this system and inform our clients that the Raw system is a negative film and have the guarantee of the authenticity of this type of image and is not manipulated .

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Footer

Site Menu

Privacy & Cookies: Our partners will collect data and use cookies for ad personalization and measurement. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, please see our Privacy Policy